Westminster Hall Debates Brexit’s Costs and Closer EU Ties
High-Level Summary
Westminster Hall considered e-petition 749128, signed by 111,687 people, calling for the UK to apply to rejoin the European Union. Many speakers argued that Brexit had increased trade barriers, reduced opportunities and weakened co-operation on security, migration, research and youth mobility; several supported closer interim arrangements or eventual EU membership. Bernard Jenkin, Danny Kruger and Opposition spokesperson Mike Wood disputed the economic case for rejoining, citing UK growth, regulatory flexibility and independent trade policy. The Government set out current and proposed UK-EU co-operation, including sanitary and phytosanitary measures, emissions trading, Erasmus+ and a youth experience scheme, and said that longer-term options would be set out around the 20 November summit; the question was agreed and no division was recorded in the transcript.
Detailed Summary
Petition debate: arguments for closer UK-EU relations and eventual rejoining
Tony Vaughan moved the motion and said the petition raised economic, security and democratic questions. He cited constituency examples of additional paperwork, border friction and the 90/180-day rule affecting haulage and exports, and argued that closer European co-operation could assist with asylum enforcement, intelligence sharing, youth mobility, research, agrifood trade and support for Ukraine. He said that post-Brexit trading arrangements had “added cost, delay and uncertainty to British businesses”, and urged the Minister to ensure that EU membership remained an option: “I urge the Minister to make sure that membership is on the list of possible options”.
Paul Kohler, Rachael Maskell, Ben Coleman, Pippa Heylings, Marsha de Cordova, Perran Moon, Manuela Perteghella, Daniel Zeichner, Caroline Voaden, Luke Charters, Iqbal Mohamed, Helen Hayes, Carla Denyer, Susan Murray, Monica Harding and Al Pinkerton also argued for closer UK-EU relations, although they differed on the preferred route and timetable. They referred to effects on businesses, farming, universities, creative industries, young people, energy and regional funding, and some supported an interim customs union, single-market access, a growth and defence partnership or youth mobility. Several speakers said that rejoining would not be immediate or straightforward. Daniel Zeichner said, “there is not a simple on/off switch”, while Scott Arthur said he would be surprised if there were a referendum on rejoining within a decade.
Arguments against rejoining and in favour of retaining Brexit arrangements
Bernard Jenkin argued that the UK economy had grown faster than France and Germany since leaving the EU and that divergence from EU regulation had benefited technology and financial services. He challenged estimates of Brexit’s economic cost as projections rather than facts and argued that the EU’s share of global GDP had declined. He concluded that “the case for joining the single market has collapsed”. Danny Kruger similarly attributed some economic difficulties to domestic policy and argued that innovation, light-touch regulation and legal certainty were more important drivers of growth than market access; he presented UK artificial-intelligence investment as evidence of the benefits of divergence.
Mike Wood, responding on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, said that rejoining would require a full accession process rather than restoration of the former terms. He asserted that membership would involve adopting the euro, joining the Schengen area and making a substantial financial contribution, and said that the Opposition would resist rejoining. He characterised the Government’s proposed closer alignment as “total regulatory submission with none of the say”. Supporters of closer ties disputed the significance of comparative national growth figures and emphasised the counterfactual economic impact. Vaughan said that the National Bureau of Economic Research had found that UK GDP was “6% to 8% lower by the end of 2025 than it would have been if we had not left the EU”.
Government response: current agreements and future options
Mark Ferguson, responding for the Government, referred to a UK-EU security and defence partnership, the UK’s agreement to join an EU Ukraine support loan initiative, work towards a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, emissions-trading co-operation and the planned association with Erasmus+. He said these measures were intended to reduce red tape, support growth and restore opportunities for young people. He stated that the UK would associate with Erasmus+ from 1 January and contribute approximately £570 million. The year for 1 January was not stated in the transcript.
Ferguson said that the 20 November UK-EU summit was intended to advance agreements and that the Prime Minister would set out options for the UK’s longer-term relationship with European partners around the summit. He did not commit to the citizen-led deliberative process proposed by Rachael Maskell, saying, “I will not commit to anything of that nature today”. On rejoining specifically, he referred back to the Prime Minister’s statement and described a range of options rather than making a commitment to membership. He concluded that “Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain”.
Decision and next steps
Tony Vaughan’s motion was agreed. The transcript records the question as put and agreed, without recording a division: “That this House has considered e-petition 749128 relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU”. The sitting was then adjourned.
The next steps stated in the debate were the UK-EU summit on 20 November; continued work on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, emissions-trading arrangements, Erasmus+ association and a youth experience scheme; engagement with EU partners on the “Made in Europe” initiative; and the Prime Minister’s presentation of longer-term relationship options. The transcript records no commitment to begin accession negotiations or to hold a referendum on rejoining.